Re: [PATCH] cifs: handle termination of cifs oplockd kernel thread

From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 03:18:01 EST

> Except that we don't have the concept of a mount owner at the VFS level
> right now, because everyone is adding stupid suid wrapper hacks instead
> of trying to fix the problems for real.

Having a mount owner is not a problem. Having a good policy for
accepting mounts is rather more so, according to some:

Just a little taste of what that policy would involve:

- global limit on user mounts
- possibly per user limit on mounts
- acceptable mountpoints (unlimited writablity is probably a good minimum)
- acceptable mount options (nosuid, nodev are obviously not)
- filesystems "safe" to mount by users

I'm not against something like that, but I'd like to hear other
people's opinion before trying to push a solution to mainline.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at